Society at a Glance OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS · Society at a Glance 2011 OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS This...

Society at a Glance 2011OECD SOCIAL INDICATORSThis sixth edition of Society at a Glance updates some indicators, introduces several new ones, and features a special chapter on unpaid work. It includes data on the four newest OECD members: Chile, Estonia, Israel and Slovenia. Where available, data on Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Russia and South Africa are also included.

Chapter 1. Cooking and Caring, Building and Repairing: Unpaid Work around the World

Chapter 2. Interpreting OECD Social Indicators

Chapter 3. Society at a Glance: An Overview

Chapter 4. General Context Indicators• Household income• Fertility• Migration• Family • Old age support rate

Chapter 5. Self-suffi ciency Indicators• Employment • Unemployment• Student performance • Pensionable years• Education spending

Chapter 6. Equity Indicators• Income inequality• Poverty• Income diffi culties• Leaving low income from benefi ts • Public social spending

Chapter 7. Health Indicators• Life expectancy• Infant mortality• Positive and negative experiences • Water and air quality• Health spending

Chapter 8. Social Cohesion Indicators• Trust• Confi dence in social institutions• Pro- and anti-social behaviour• Voting• Tolerance

www.oecd.org/els/social/indicators

ISBN 978-92-64-09852-781 2011 04 1 P -:HSTCQE=U^]ZW\:

So

ciety at a Glance 2011 O

EC

D S

OC

IAL IN

DIC

AT

OR

S

Please cite this publication as:

OECD (2011), Society at a Glance 2011: OECD Social Indicators, OECD Publishing.http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/soc_glance-2011-en

This work is published on the OECD iLibrary, which gathers all OECD books, periodicals and statistical databases. Visit www.oecd-ilibrary.org, and do not hesitate to contact us for more information.

Society at a Glance 2011OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS

Society at a Glance2011

OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS

This work is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The

opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official

views of the Organisation or of the governments of its member countries.

ISBN 978-92-64-09852-7 (print)ISBN 978-92-64-09853-4 (PDF)ISBN 978-92-64-11112-7 (HTML)

The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The useof such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israelisettlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.

Photo credits: Cover: © iStockphoto/naphtalinaChapter 4: © Stockbyte/Getty ImagesChapter 5: © Maria Taglienti-Molinari/Brand X/CorbisChapter 6: © Matthieu Spohn/PhotoAlto Agency RF Collections/Getty ImagesChapter 7: © Helen King/CorbisChapter 8: © Daniel Boiteau/Fotolia.com

Corrigenda to OECD publications may be found on line at: www.oecd.org/publishing/corrigenda.

© OECD 2011

You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD publications, databases and

multimedia products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided that suitable

acknowledgment of OECD as source and copyright owner is given. All requests for public or commercial use and translation rights should

be submitted to [email protected]. Requests for permission to photocopy portions of this material for public or commercial use shall be

addressed directly to the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) at [email protected] or the Centre français d’exploitation du droit de copie (CFC)

at [email protected].

Please cite this publication as:OECD (2011), Society at a Glance 2011: OECD Social Indicators, OECD Publishing.http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/soc_glance-2011-en

FOREWORD

SOCIETY AT A GLANCE 2011: OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS © OECD 2011 3

Foreword

This is the sixth edition of Society at a Glance, the OECD’s biennial overview of social indicators.

As with its predecessors, this report addresses the growing demand for quantitative evidence on

social well-being and its trends across OECD countries. It updates some indicators included in the

previous five editions and introduces several new ones.

The 2011 report heralds the arrival of four new OECD member countries: Chile, Estonia, Israel and

Slovenia. These countries are included in Society at a Glance for the first time. Data on Brazil, China,

India, Indonesia, the Russian Federation, and South Africa are also included separately where available.

This report features a special chapter on unpaid work (Chapter 1). It also provides a guide to

help readers in understanding the structure of OECD social indicators (Chapter 2), and a summary

of the main trends (Chapter 3). Indicators are then considered. More detailed information on

indicators, including some not included in this print edition, can be found on the OECD web pages

(www.oecd.org/els/social/indicators/SAG).

This report was prepared by Simon Chapple and Maxime Ladaique. Nabil Ali, Michael De Looper,

Michael Förster, Pauline Fron, Herwig Immervoll, Gaetan Lafortune, Thomas Liebig, Pascal Marianna,

Veerle Miranda (special chapter), Marlène Mohier, Dominique Paturot, Andrew Reilly,

Dominic Richardson, Kim Robin and Olivier Thévenon all made valuable contributions.

Monika Queisser, Head of the OECD Social Policy Division, supervised the report.

TABLE OF CONTENTS


Table of Contents

Acronyms and Conventional Signs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Chapter 1. Cooking and Caring, Building and Repairing:Unpaid Work around the World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Unpaid work and well-being. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

What is unpaid work? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Measuring unpaid work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Time use in OECD countries and emerging economies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Differences between men and women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Types of unpaid work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Valuing unpaid work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Chapter 2. Interpreting OECD Social Indicators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

The purpose of Society at a Glance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

The framework of OECD social indicators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

The selection and description of indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

What can be found in this publication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Chapter 3. Society at a Glance: An Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Chapter 4. General Context Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

1. Household income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

2. Fertility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

3. Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

4. Family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

5. Old age support rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Chapter 5. Self-sufficiency Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

1. Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

2. Unemployment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

3. Student performance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

4. Pensionable years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

5. Education spending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SOCIETY AT A GLANCE 2011: OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS © OECD 20116

Chapter 6. Equity Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

1. Income inequality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

2. Poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

3. Income difficulties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

4. Leaving low income from benefits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

5. Public social spending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Chapter 7. Health Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

1. Life expectancy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

2. Infant mortality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

3. Positive and negative experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

4. Water and air quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

5. Health spending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Chapter 8. Social Cohesion Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

1. Trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

2. Confidence in social institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

3. Pro- and anti-social behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

4. Voting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

5. Tolerance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

This book has...

StatLinks2A service that delivers Excel® files

from the printed page!

Look for the StatLinks at the bottom right-hand corner of the tables or graphs in this book. To download the matching Excel® spreadsheet, just type the link into your Internet browser, starting with the http://dx.doi.org prefix. If you’re reading the PDF e-book edition, and your PC is connected to the Internet, simply click on the link. You’ll find StatLinks appearing in more OECD books.

ACRONYMS AND CONVENTIONAL SIGNS


Acronyms and Conventional Signs

OECD country ISO codes

Other major economy country ISO codes

Conventional signs. . Not available.

(➘) in the legend relates to the variable for which countries are ranked from left to right in

decreasing order.

(➚) in the legend relates to the variable for which countries are ranked from left to right in

increasing order.

Australia AUS Japan JPN

Austria AUT Korea KOR

Belgium BEL Luxembourg LUX

Canada CAN Mexico MEX

Chile CHL Netherlands NLD

Czech Republic CZE New Zealand NZL

Denmark DNK Norway NOR

Estonia EST Poland POL

Finland FIN Portugal PRT

France FRA Slovak Republic SVK

Germany DEU Slovenia SVN

Greece GRC Spain ESP

Hungary HUN Sweden SWE

Iceland ISL Switzerland CHE

Ireland IRL Turkey TUR

Israel ISR United Kingdom GBR

Italy ITA United States USA

Brazil BRA Indonesia IDN

China CHN Russian Federation RUS

India IND South Africa ZAF

Society at a Glance 2011

OECD Social Indicators

© OECD 2011

9

Chapter 1

Cooking and Caring, Building and Repairing:

Unpaid Work around the World1

1. COOKING AND CARING, BUILDING AND REPAIRING: UNPAID WORK AROUND THE WORLD


Unpaid work and well-beingFamilies devote substantial unpaid time to productive activities such as cooking,

cleaning and caring. This unpaid work increases overall consumption of goods and

services and represents implicit income (Becker, 1965). As countries industrialise, a large

part of the household production of food, clothing and caring for family members may be

transferred to markets and purchased by families. At a national level, well-being is often

proxied by aggregate income or production per head (e.g. GDP per capita) and changes in

well-being by the corresponding growth rate. But levels of well-being will be under-

reported if there is a considerable amount of unpaid work. Additionally, well-being gains

will be over-reported if GDP growth occurs because of reductions in unpaid work and

increases in paid work (Stiglitz et al., 2009).

Ignoring home production may also bias measures of income inequality and poverty

rates (Abraham and Mackie, 2005). For instance, families where one parent does the

cooking and cleaning and looks after the children will have a higher disposable income

than households with the same income and hours worked, but where both parents do paid

work and buy cleaning and childcare services in the market. While standard income-based

living standards treat these two families as identical, Frazis and Stewart (2010) show that

an inequality measure including valuation of family production is more equally distributed

as unpaid work varies much less than paid work across households.

In addition to unpaid work within the home, people also carry out vital unpaid work

for relatives and for the wider community. Voluntary work, such as helping out neighbours,

caring for people of all ages with or without disabilities, supporting charities, assisting

immigrants, training sports teams, and administering schools, also contribute directly and

indirectly to societal well-being.

This special chapter sheds light on the importance of unpaid work as an important

well-being indicator by making use of detailed time-use surveys for 26 OECD countries, and

for China, India and South Africa.

What is unpaid work?Unpaid work is the production of goods and services by family members that are not

sold on the market. Some unpaid work is for consumption within the family, such as

cooking, gardening and house cleaning. The products of unpaid work can also be

consumed by people not living in the household, e.g. cooking for visiting friends, mowing

lawns of an elderly relative, or coaching the local children’s football team.

The boundary between unpaid work and leisure is determined by the “third-person”

criterion. If a third person could be paid to do the activity, it is considered to be work.

Cooking, cleaning, childcare, laundry, walking the dog and gardening are therefore all

examples of unpaid work. On the other hand, someone else cannot be paid to watch a

movie, play tennis, or silently read a book on another’s behalf as the benefits of the activity

would accrue to the doer (the third person), and not to the hirer (Ironmonger, 1996).

Consequently these latter activities are considered to be leisure.



Some unpaid work, e.g. playing with children, walking the dog, cooking or tending a

garden, is often enjoyable (see Society at a Glance 2009 on reported enjoyment of various

activities). This form of satisfaction is a benefit that cannot be transferred to another

person. Thus the level of enjoyment of the person doing the activity cannot be used to

distinguish between work and leisure (Hill, 1979).

Measuring unpaid workTime-use surveys record how people allocate their time, typically using a 24-hour

diary. In addition, these surveys provide information on the context of the activity – where

people did it, with whom they did it and what other activities they did at the same time,

the frequency of the activity – and the socio-economic characteristics of the person and

their family.

Several issues may significantly affect country comparability of time-use data,

including the collection methodology, the length of diary time slots, and the number of

days on which diaries are completed (Miranda, 2011). Ideally, time-use surveys are spread

over the whole year and thus contain a representative proportion of weekdays and

weekend days, as well as public and school holidays. Some countries, however, only cover

particular periods in the week or year, typically chosen to avoid seasonal biases such as

those due to public holidays or annual leave for workers. This is the case, to varying

degrees, for Canada, China, Denmark, France, Ireland, Japan, Korea, Mexico and

South Africa. Excluding holiday periods leads to an over-estimation of annual paid working

time and an under-estimation of unpaid work and leisure time for these nine countries.

Second, Ireland and Mexico use a simplified variant of the time-use diary. Thus, time-use

estimates for Ireland and Mexico are much less precise than for other countries. In

addition, in the Mexican time-use survey, respondents are asked about their time use

during the seven days prior to the interview. Given the large time lapse between the activity

and the interview, responses are likely to be rougher estimates of the true time use. As

time-use surveys were taken in different years, with countries at different stages in the

economic cycle and with access to different levels of technology, this may be another

reason for between-country variations observed.

To improve cross-country comparability, where possible, data consider populations

aged 15-64. Activities are aggregated into five main categories: 1) unpaid work; 2) paid work

or study; 3) personal care; 4) leisure; and 5) other time use. “Unpaid work” includes

activities like routine household work (e.g. cooking, cleaning and gardening), caring for

children and other family and non-family members, volunteering, and shopping. “Paid

work or study” covers full-time and part-time jobs, unpaid work in family business/farm,

breaks in the workplace, time spent looking for work, time spent in education, and

homework. “Personal care” covers sleep, eating and drinking, and other household,

medical, and personal services (hygiene, grooming, visits to the doctor, etc.). “Leisure”

includes hobbies, watching television, computer use, sports, socialising with friends and

family, attending cultural events, and so on. “Other” contains religious activities and civic

obligations, as well as unspecified time use.

Time spent on travel is treated as a derived activity and classified in the same category

as the activity to which it is linked, even though, strictly speaking, travelling does not

follow the third-person criterion of unpaid work, as it is not possible to hire someone to

travel on one’s behalf. Journeys can, however, also have multiple destinations. Often people

try to save time by combining travel to work with dropping off their children at school or

shopping on the way home. As a rule, travelling time is recorded in the time-use surveys



according to the destination. For example, driving from home to work is regarded as travel

related to paid work, from work to school as travel related to childcare, from school to the

grocery store as travel related to shopping, and from the grocery store to home as travel

related to shopping.

Time use in OECD countries and emerging economiesAcross the 29 countries for which data are available (all OECD averages used here are

unweighted averages of the countries presented in the charts), people average 3.4 hours

per day (24-hours) on unpaid work, or 14% of the day (Figure 1.1). There is much variation

in unpaid work between countries. Mexicans spend the most time on unpaid work, about

four and a half hours per day. People in Japan, Korea and China do the least unpaid work,

about half the time of Mexicans. In all countries, personal care, including sleeping and

eating, takes up most of people’s time, accounting for 46% of a 24-hour day on average. The

remaining time is spent on leisure (20% of people’s total time) and in paid employment or

study (on average 19% of people’s time). Less than 1% of a day is devoted on average to

religious activities and other unspecified time use.

Figure 1.1. People spend one-tenth to one-fifth of their time on unpaid workTime use by main activity in percentage of total time use for the population aged 15-64

over the period 1998-20091

1. Australia: 2006; Austria: 2008-09; Belgium: 2005; Canada: 2005; China: 2008; Denmark: 2001; Estonia: 1999-2000;Finland: 1999-2000; France: 1998-99; Germany: 2001-02; Hungary: 1999-2000; India: 1999; Italy: 2002-03; Ireland:2005; Japan: 2006; Korea: 2009; Mexico: 2009; the Netherlands: 2006; New Zealand: 1998-99; Norway: 2000-01;Poland: 2003-04; Portugal: 1999; Slovenia: 2000-01; South Africa: 2000; Spain: 2002-03; Sweden: 2000-01; Turkey:2006; the United Kingdom: 2000-01; the United States: 2008.

2. For a number of countries it was not possible to restrict the sample to the population aged 15-64. The age limitsare Australia: 15+; China: 15-74; Hungary: 15-74; Sweden: 20-64. A different upper age limit is unlikely to affecttime use significantly. A lower age limit will diminish the importance of unpaid work.

3. Surveys for Canada, China, Denmark, France, Ireland, Japan, Korea, Mexico and South Africa do not cover acomplete calendar year and thus, to varying degrees, under-represent holidays. As people do more unpaid workon weekends, excluding holidays overestimates paid work and underestimates unpaid work and leisure.

4. Ireland and Mexico use a simplified time-use diary. Mexicans are also asked about their time use during the sevendays prior to the interview. Hence, estimates for Ireland and Mexico are less precise.

5. For Hungary, only pre-prepared tables on time use are available and the categories are not always entirelycomparable with the aggregations used for the other countries. The comparison of Hungary with other countriesshould thus be interpreted with caution.

Source: OECD’s Secretariat estimates based on national time-use surveys (see Miranda, 2011, for more details).1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932381437

100

80

60

40

20

0

%

9 11 11 12 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 16 17 17 18

24 24 2618 18 20 17 22 19 16 19 17 21 20 19 18 16 19 20 18 16 16 19 17 18 20 20 17 17

24

4548 44

48 4348 51 42 46 48

4744

45 44 46 44 45 43 43 47 46 4648

45 44 44 4746 46

43

20 16 16 20 2518 17 21 21 23 19

24 19 20 20 22 24 22 22 20 22 2317 21 22 20 16

20 18 15

Unpaid work () Paid work or study Personal care Leisure Other

Korea

3

China2

, 3

Japa

n3

South

Africa

3

Norway

India

Franc

e3

Canad

a3

Spain

Belgium

Hunga

ry2,

5

Finlan

d

Austri

a

United

States

OECD

United

Kingdo

m

German

y

Irelan

d3, 4

Sweden

2

Italy

Netherl

ands

Denmark

3

New Ze

aland

Poland

Sloven

ia

Eston

ia

Portug

al

Austra

lia2

Turke

y

Mexico

3, 4



Be it paid or unpaid, people spend about one-third of their time working. Total working

time is lowest in Western Europe and South Africa and highest in Japan and Mexico

(Figure 1.2). In Japan and Mexico, people work respectively nine and ten hours per day in

total. People in Belgium, Denmark, Germany, and South Africa work about seven to seven

and a half hours per day. In most countries, time spent on paid work exceeds time spent on

unpaid work, with the exceptions of Australia and Turkey. While the average paid working

time may seem low, it should be borne in mind that the figures cover weekdays, weekends

and holidays, and include the employed and non-employed.

Countries with high paid work time, like China, Japan and Korea, tend to have low

unpaid working time. The opposite is true for Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand and

Turkey (Figure 1.3). The apparent trade-off between unpaid and paid work is also reflected

in the lower variation for total working time across countries compared with that of paid

work and unpaid work.

Differences between men and womenIn all countries women do more unpaid work than men (Figure 1.4). The gender gap

averages 2.5 hours per day. But there is significant divergence in the gender gap across

countries. For instance, Turkish, Mexican and Indian women spend per day 4.3-5 hours

more on unpaid work than men, while the difference is only a little over one hour in the

Nordic countries. Indian and Mexican gender differences are driven by the long hours

women spend in the kitchen and caring for children. In Southern Europe, Korea and Japan,

women also do considerably more unpaid work than the men.

Figure 1.2. Total working time is lowest in Western Europe and highest outside Europe

Total minutes worked, paid and unpaid, per day

Note: Travelling time related to paid and unpaid work is included in the respective categories. See Figure 1.1 forcountry-specific notes.

Source: OECD’s Secretariat estimates based on national time-use surveys (see Miranda, 2011).1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932381456

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Paid work or study Unpaid work

Belgium

Denmark

German

y

South

Africa

Franc

e

Netherl

ands

Finlan

d

Norway

United

Kingdo

mIta

lySpa

in

Hunga

ry

Poland

Austra

lia

Irelan

dKor

eaInd

ia

Turke

y

Sweden

Sloven

ia

United

States

OECD

New Ze

aland

China

Austri

a

Eston

ia

Canad

a

Portug

al

Japa

n

Mexico



Countries with the largest gender gap in unpaid work are also those countries where

men devote relatively little time to unpaid work (Figure 1.5, Panel A). Men’s unpaid working

time averages less than an hour a day in Korea, India and Japan, 1.5 hours in China and

South Africa, nearly two hours in Turkey, Italy, Mexico, Portugal and Spain, and 2.5 hours in

the rest of the countries shown here. The low amount of men’s unpaid work is not always

compensated by high amounts for women (Figure 1.5, Panel B). In China, for instance, both

men and women spend very little time on unpaid work in comparison with other countries.

In Australia, on the other hand, both sexes are at the top of the unpaid work ranking.

Figure 1.3. Trade-offs between paid and unpaid workMinutes of paid and unpaid work

Note: Travelling time related to paid and unpaid work is included in the respective categories. See Figure 1.1 forcountry-specific notes.


Figure 1.4. Women do more unpaid work than men in all countriesFemale less male unpaid working time in minutes per day

Note: See Figure 1.1 for country-specific notes.


200

300

250

200

150

100220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400

R2 = 0.22

AUS

AUTBEL CAN

CHN

DNK

EST

FIN

FRA

DEUHUN

IND

IRLITA

JPN

KOR

MEX

NLD NZL

NOR

POLPRT

SVN

ZAF

ESP

SWE

TUR

GBRUSA

Minutes of unpaid work per day

Minutes of paid work per day

300

200

100

0

Denmark

Sweden

Norway

Finlan

d

Belgium

Canad

a

United

States

German

y

Netherl

ands

Eston

ia

Sloven

ia

Franc

e

United

Kingdo

mAus

tria

New Ze

aland

Poland

Austra

lia

Hunga

ryChin

aOEC

D

South

Africa

Irelan

dKor

eaSpa

inJa

pan

Italy

Portug

al

Turke

y

Mexico Ind

ia



What drives large gender differences in unpaid work? Women have become

increasingly active in the paid labour market over the past few decades and have decreased

their unpaid working time. There is a strong negative correlation between a country’s

female employment rate and women’s average unpaid working time (Figure 1.6). Part of

women’s reduced unpaid work is picked up by men, as shown by the positive correlation

between a country’s female employment rate and men’s average unpaid working time. But

even in the country with the highest unpaid working time among men – Denmark – men

still devote less time to unpaid work than women in Norway, the country with the lowest

female unpaid working time.

Figure 1.5. Asian men spend the least hours in unpaid work, Mexican and Turkish women the most




400

300

100

200

0

400

300

100

200

0

Panel A. Men

Korea

India

Japa

nChin

a

South

Africa

Portug

alIta

lySpa

in

Mexico

Turke

y

Hunga

ry

Irelan

dOEC

D

Austri

a

Franc

e

Canad

a

United

Kingdo

m

Belgium

Norway

Finlan

d

United

States

Poland

New Ze

aland

Netherl

ands

German

y

Sloven

ia

Eston

ia

Austra

lia

Sweden

Denmark

Panel B. Women

Norway

Korea

China

Denmark

Finlan

d

Belgium

Canad

a

Sweden

South

Africa

Franc

e

United

States

Netherl

ands

Hunga

ryJa

pan

German

y

Austri

a

United

Kingdo

mOEC

D

Sloven

ia

Eston

iaSpa

in

New Ze

aland

Poland

Irelan

d

Austra

lia Italy

Portug

alInd

ia

Mexico

Turke

y



Part of the reason for women’s higher share of unpaid work is their shorter time in

paid work. As shown in Figure 1.7, the gender difference in total working time – the sum of

paid and unpaid work, including travelling time – is close to or below zero for countries

with high female employment. Longer hours spent on housework and caring by women are

compensated with shorter paid work hours. Part-time paid work for women is common in

Australia, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, where more than

40% of women work on a part-time basis (OECD, 2007). In countries with a relative lack of

Figure 1.6. Men do more unpaid work as women do more paid and less unpaid work

Note: The female employment rates are for the population aged 15-64 years and correspond to the year during whichthe time-use survey was undertaken. See Figure 1.1 for country-specific notes.

Source: OECD’s Secretariat estimates based on national time-use surveys (see Miranda, 2011) and OECD Labour ForceSurveys for female employment rates.

1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932381532

Figure 1.7. Countries with high female paid employment have a more equal gender division in total working time

Note: The female employment rates are for the population aged 15-64 years and correspond to the year during whichthe time-use survey was undertaken. See Figure 1.1 for country-specific notes.

Source: OECD’s Secretariat estimates based on national time-use surveys (see Miranda, 2011) and OECD Labour ForceSurveys for female employment rates.

1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932381551

500

400

300

200

100

020 30 40 50 60 70 80

AUS AUT

BELCAN

CHN DNK

EST

FINFRA

DEU

HUNIRL

ITA

JPNKOR

MEX

NLDNZL

NOR

POLPRT

SVN

ZAFESP

SWE

TURGBR

USA

AUS

AUT

BEL

CAN

CHN

DNKEST FIN

FRA DEUHUNIRL

ITAJPNKOR

MEX

NLDNZLNOR

POL

PRT

SVN

ZAF ESP

SWE

TURGBRUSA


Female employment rate (%)

Male: R2 = 0.22 Female: R2 = 0.44

20

120

80

40

0

-4030 40 50 60 70 80

R2 = 0.32

AUS

AUTBELCAN

CHN

DNK

EST

FINFRA

DEU

HUN

IRL

ITA

JPN

KORMEX

NLD

NZL NOR

POL

PRT

SVNZAF

ESP

SWE

TUR

GBR

USA

Female-male gender gap in total working time, minutes per day

Female employment rate (%)



opportunity for part-time work, particularly in Southern Europe, the presence of children

is an important factor associated with women’s exit from the labour market (Lewis et al.,

2008). These countries are also those were women work much longer hours in total

(Figure 1.7).

Government policies, such as working-time regulations, family policies and gender

equality initiatives, can influence women’s roles in unpaid work (Baker, 1997; Gornick and

Meyers, 2003; and Hook, 2006). On the one hand, publicly subsidised formal childcare

relieves mothers of some childcare responsibilities and encourages their paid work. On the

other hand, long parental leave arrangements are primarily used by women, reinforcing

traditional gender roles and damaging mothers’ labour attachment. Non-transferable

paternal entitlement to paid leave increase chances of more equal leave sharing between

mothers and fathers, but so far there is no evidence of the longer-term effect on the

division of housework (OECD, 2011).

Types of unpaid work

Routine housework

Most unpaid work is routine housework – cooking, cleaning, gardening and home

maintenance. Across the 29 countries, people spend on average two hours and eight

minutes per day on housework (Figure 1.8). The total duration varies, however, greatly

across countries, as does the importance of routine housework within total unpaid work.

For instance, Koreans spend only 1.4 hours per day on housework, but it accounts for

60% of their total time spent on unpaid work. Australians, on the other hand, devote on

Figure 1.8. Routine housework is the largest component of unpaid work1

Minutes of unpaid work per day by main categories

1. See Figure 1.1 for additional country notes.2. For Australia, Hungary and Ireland, care for household members cannot be separated from care for non-

household members. In the Korean and Japanese time-use surveys, there is no distinction between care forhousehold members and care for non-household members. Instead they make a distinction between family careand care for others. All care for family members is consequently included in the category care for householdmembers, irrespective of whether the family members live in the household.

3. For Mexico, travelling time cannot be separated from the activity to which it is linked, except for some travelrelated to childcare. Each of the sub-categories is thus slightly overestimated.


300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Routine housework

Care for non-household members

Care for household members

Travel related to unpaid workVolunteering

Shopping

Korea

2

China

Japa

n2

South

Africa

Norway

India

Franc

e

Canad

aSpa

in

Belgium

Hunga

ry2

Finlan

d

Austri

a

United

States

OECD

United

Kingdo

m

German

y

Irelan

d2

Sweden Ita

ly

Denmark

Netherl

ands

Portug

al

New Ze

aland

Poland

Sloven

ia

Eston

ia

Austra

lia2

Turke

y

Mexico

3



average more than two hours to routine housework but it represents only half of their total

unpaid working time. Compared with the other components of unpaid work, there is less

variation across countries in routine housework (coefficient of variation of 0.17).

Care for household members and shopping are typically the next largest unpaid work

categories, lasting respectively 26 and 23 minutes per day on average. The relative

importance of both time categories differs across countries, but there is less variation in

shopping (coefficient of variation of 0.26) than in caring (coefficient of variation of 0.34).

The variation across countries is largest for voluntary work (coefficient of variation of 1.10),

with the average daily volunteering time ranging from less than one minute in India and

Korea to 8 minutes in Ireland and the United States.

Childcare

Childcare is often combined with other activities, e.g. cooking while a child is playing

in another room. Time-use surveys deal with multitasking by recording both “primary”

activities (“what were you doing?”) and “secondary” activities (“were you doing anything

else at the same time?”). One limitation of such an approach is that primary activities tend

to be meticulously tracked while secondary ones are usually overlooked (and in some

countries not even collected). Some surveys encourage respondents to report their

secondary activities by listing clear examples on the diary form. However, as not all

countries do such priming, recording of secondary activities can vary across countries

(Folbre and Yoon, 2007).

Several surveys try to capture the diffuse nature of childcare by including additional

childcare questions. These questions are defined either as the time spent in the proximity

of a child (e.g. “who was with you?”) or as the time being responsible for a child (e.g. “was a

child in your care?” or “were you looking after a child?”). The advantage of such questions

is that they are more likely to pick up respondents who would otherwise not record their

responsibility. They also better capture passive childcare, which is fundamentally different

from active childcare as it constrains other activities rather than being an activity in itself

(Budig and Folbre, 2004). On the other hand, both the proximity method and the

responsibility method may overstate childcare when several adults share the caring

responsibility for the child.

Figure 1.9 sets out the different methodologies of measuring childcare: the

respondent-recorded method in Panel A and the proximity and responsibility method in

Panel B. Across the 22 countries for which consistent data are available,2 parents average

1 hour and 12 minutes per day on childcare as a primary activity. Adding secondary

childcare raises the average substantially to almost two hours per day.3 Total time devoted

to (primary) childcare is lowest in Korea, Belgium and Hungary – occupying less than

one hour per day – and highest in the Anglophone countries. The impact of priming

respondents is visible in the extremely high childcare estimates for Australia. The

Australian time diary gives clear examples of secondary childcare which encourage

parents to record passive childcare. The largest category of secondary childcare in Australia

is child minding, accounting for almost four hours per day for parents of children under

15 years of age.

Panel B of Figure 1.9 compares two measures of passive childcare. In the 16 countries

which added a proximity question to their time-use survey, parents spend on average

four hours per day with their children. The responsibility method (asked only in

two countries) provides even higher estimates of childcare, reaching 6.7 hours per day in

the United States and 5.3 hours in Canada, although the difference with the proximity



Figure 1.9. Parents’ active and passive childcareMinutes of childcare per day1

1. See Figure 1.1 and Figure 1.8 for additional country-specific notes.2. Respondent-recorded childcare refers to the amount of time spent on childcare that respondents report

themselves in their time-use diaries, either as a primary or secondary activity. The estimates refer to care forchildren under the age of 18, except for Australia and Canada (less than 15 years).

3. Estimates for Australia also include time spent on care of non-household children. However, this is unlikely toaffect the results significantly as such care tends to be low. For instance, in the United States, parents devote onaverage 77 minutes per day to care for children of their own household, compared with two minutes fornon-household children.

4. The proximity method measures passive childcare by time spent in the presence of a child. The responsibilitymethod measures passive childcare based on the amount of time respondents are responsible for the care of achild. Unfortunately, the age cut-off for both methods differs significantly across countries: 10 years in mostEuropean countries – with the exception of Denmark (18 years), Ireland (18 years), and Portugal (14 years) –15 years in Canada and 13 years in the United States.


500

400

300

200

100

0

500

400

300

200

100

0

Panel A. Respondent-recorded childcare2

Primary childcare () Secondary care

Korea

South

Africa

Belgium

Hunga

ry

Franc

e

Sloven

iaJa

pan

Eston

ia

German

y

Denmark

Norway

Finlan

dOEC

DIta

ly

Poland

Sweden

Spain

United

Kingdo

mAus

tria

United

States

Canad

a

Irelan

d

Austra

lia3

Panel B. Proximity and responsibility method4

Proximity method ()

Portug

al

Sloven

ia

Belgium

Poland

Eston

ia

German

y

Norway

Spain

Sweden Ita

lyOEC

D

United

Kingdo

m

United

States

Canad

a

Denmark

Austri

a

Irelan

d

Responsibility method



method is minimal for Canada. The country ranking of passive childcare is very similar to

the active childcare measures in Panel A, with Slovenia and Belgium at the bottom and

Austria, Denmark and Ireland at the top.

Not only does the total amount of time devoted to childcare differ by parental gender, but

it also differs by type of activities. A distinction can be made between: 1) physical care, such as

meeting the basic needs of children, including dressing and feeding children, changing

diapers, providing medical care for children, and supervising children; 2) educational and

recreational childcare, such as helping children with their homework, reading to children, and

playing games with children; and 3) travel related to any of the two other categories, e.g. driving

a child to school, to a doctor or to sport activities. Mother’s childcare time is dominated by

physical childcare and supervision, accounting for 60% of their childcare activities

(Figure 1.10). Fathers, on the other hand, spend proportionally more time in educational and

recreational activities than mothers, i.e. 41% of their total childcare time compared with 27% of

mothers’ total childcare time. Still, mothers spend more than twice as much time in childcare

than do fathers, a pattern which holds for all countries and the different subgroups. On

average in the 22 countries for which data are available, childcare takes up 42 minutes per day

for fathers whereas it occupies 1 hour and 40 minutes of mothers’ time.

Caring for adults

Caring for adults is part of the insurance function of families and of great importance

in an environment where populations are ageing rapidly. Care for adults receives much less

attention in time-use surveys than care for children does. However, many surveys do not

even publish caring for the elderly as a separate category. In addition, adult care is not

separated by the age of the person that is being cared for, so it is often impossible to make

a distinction between care for an ill or disabled spouse or other relative. Only the Korean

time-use survey has separate categories for care for parents, spouse and other family

members. Differences in definition and presentation thus make the comparison of adult

care across countries extremely difficult.

Table 1.1 lists the countries’ average duration of adult care according to a range of

different classifications used. In the first ten countries, care for adult household members

can be separated from care for children, as well as from care for non-household members.

In those countries, adult care takes up 0.2 to 6 minutes per day. Similar results can be

Figure 1.10. Women devote most of their time to physical childcare, while men devote most of their time to teaching, reading and playing with their children

Time devoted to different types of primary childcare

Note: The figures are unweighted averages over the 21 countries for which data is available. The estimates refer to care for children underthe age of 18, except for Australia and Canada (under 15). See Figure 1.1 and Figure 1.8 for country-specific notes.


Fathers Mothers

Physical careand supervision

of child,00:20, 45%

Physical careand supervision

of child,01:02, 60%

Educationaland recreationalcare, 00:18, 41%

Transporting a child,00:06, 14%

Educationaland recreationalcare,00:28, 27%

Transportinga child,00:14, 13%



found for Japan and Korea, where these numbers also cover care for family members who

do not live in the household. In the Australian and Irish time-use surveys, care for

household adults cannot be separated from care for non-household adults and the average

time spent on adult care is visibly higher. For the twelve European countries of the

Harmonised European Time Use Survey (HETUS), adult care is classified together with

household management under the category “Other domestic work”. For most countries,

the total time spent on these activities is noticeably higher than in the previously

discussed countries. However, in Poland and Slovenia, and to a lesser extent in Finland,

France, Italy and the United Kingdom, the total minutes devoted to other domestic work

are very low (one to four minutes per day), suggesting that people spent very little time in

adult caring. Finally, women devote on average more time to adult caring than men

irrespective of the classification used (with the exception of Estonia). But the difference is

much smaller than for childcare.

Table 1.1. Different classification of adult care across countries complicates comparison1

Minutes devoted to adult care (excluding travel)

Total (➚) Men Women

Caring for adult household members

Netherlands 0.2 0.2 0.2

South Africa 0.6 0.2 1.0

Denmark 0.8 0.9 0.8

Austria 1.2 0.5 1.8

India 1.3 0.6 2.1

United States 1.9 1.5 2.4

Canada 2.0 1.0 3.0

Portugal 2.0 0.0 3.0

Turkey 3.4 3.3 3.6

Mexico 6.0 3.0 8.8

Caring for adult family members2

Japan 2.9 1.0 5.0

Korea 4.0 2.0 5.0

Caring for adults3

Ireland 8.0 3.1 13.0

Australia 9.0 7.0 11.0

Other domestic work4

Poland 1.0 1.0 2.0

Slovenia 2.0 2.0 3.0

Finland 4.0 4.0 5.0

France 4.0 4.0 4.0

Italy 4.0 3.0 4.0

United Kingdom 4.0 4.0 4.0

Estonia 5.0 6.0 5.0

Belgium 8.0 7.0 9.0

Germany 9.0 7.0 11.0

Spain 11.0 5.0 16.0

Sweden 11.0 10.0 13.0

Norway 12.0 11.0 13.0

1. See Figure 1.1 and Figure 1.8 for country-specific notes.2. Care for adult family members also includes care for family members who do not live in the household.3. Care for adults covers both household adults and non-household adults.4. Other domestic work includes household management and care for adults.Source: OECD’s Secretariat estimates based on national time-use surveys (see Miranda, 2011).

1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932382159



Women cook, clean and care and men build and repair

Men and women do different sorts of unpaid work. Typical male tasks are construction

and repair work (Figure 1.11). Men also devote slightly more time to gardening, pet care and

volunteering, but their participation rates in these activities are equal to those of women.

Tasks that have traditionally been thought of “women’s work” (e.g. cooking and cleaning)

continue to be primarily performed by women. In the countries surveyed, 82% of women

prepare meals on an average day, while only 44% of men do. The average time spent by

women on cooking is four times the time spent by men (Figure 1.11, Panel B).

Who cooks and for how much time?

The data presented in the previous sections provide information on the average time

use for all people. However not everybody does unpaid work. It is thus interesting to look at

both the participation rates in different types of unpaid work and the time spent in those

Figure 1.11. Women cook, clean and care while men build and repair

Note: See Figure 1.1 and Figure 1.8 for country-specific notes. The percentages are unweighted averages over the 29 countries for which datais available. The statistics presented in Panel B reflect the average time use for all people, including those who do not perform the task.


100 80 60 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100%%

100 80 60 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100%%

44

22

17

13

32

3

16

12

9

21

10

15

13

18

4

12

7

6

83

43

14

3

28

4

35

24

10

82

62

21

5

46

3

30

26

16

Panel A. Percentage of men and women aged 15-64 performing the task

Men Women

Cooking and food clean-up

Cleaning

Gardening and pet care

Construction and repair

Shopping

Volunteering

Total childcare

Physical childcare

Teaching, playing with children

Cooking and food clean-up

Cleaning

Gardening and pet care

Construction and repair

Shopping

Volunteering

Total childcare

Physical childcare

Teaching, playing with children

Panel B. Minutes per day devoted to the activity by men and women

Men Women



activities by those who perform the activity. This section focuses on cooking, the

predominant type of unpaid work.

In the 28 countries for which data are available, nearly two-thirds of people cook on an

average day. But the participation rate ranges from a minimum of 44% in Ireland and India

to more than 75% in the Nordic countries.4 Yet conditional on participation, the opposite

ranking is found for the actual cooking time (Figure 1.12, Panel B). While less than half of

the adults cook in India, those who do cook spend nearly three hours per day in the

kitchen. In Norway and Denmark, on the other hand, the large majority of the population

engages in cooking, but they devote barely one hour to it.

Figure 1.12. Fewer people cook in India, but those who do, cook a lot



100

40

80

20

60

0

180

150

120

90

60

30

0

Panel A. Participation rates in cooking and food clean-up, % of the population

Panel B. Average minutes per day spent on cooking and food clean-upby all respondents and participants only

Participants ()All respondents

India

Irelan

dInd

iaJa

panKor

ea

United

States

Canad

a

Turke

yIta

ly

Austri

a

Portug

al

Sloven

ia

South

Africa

China

Franc

eOEC

D

German

ySpa

in

Eston

ia

Belgium

Finlan

d

Austra

lia

Mexico

New Ze

aland

Poland

United

Kingdo

m

Netherl

ands

Denmark

Norway

Sweden

United

States

Norway

Netherl

ands

Finlan

d

New Ze

aland

Denmark

Canad

a

German

y

Sweden

United

Kingdo

m

Austra

lia

Belgium

Austri

a

Franc

e

Irelan

dOEC

D

Eston

iaKor

ea

Poland

Spain

Sloven

iaIta

lyJa

pan

Mexico

China

South

Africa

Portug

al

Turke

y



The United States is the only country where both the participation rate and mean time

for cooking are at the bottom of the ranking. In other words, the American population

attaches on average little importance to cooking relative to the other surveyed countries.

The United States is also one of the countries where relatively little time is spent eating as

a primary activity and where obesity rates are amongst the highest in the OECD (see Society

at a Glance 2009).5

Valuing unpaid workThere are two approaches for imputing a monetary value to unpaid work. The

opportunity-cost approach values the work at the market wage of the household member

doing the time. The underlying assumption is that the household member has foregone

earnings for home production. This approach may overstate values since much household

production does not demand high skills. For instance, applying a brain surgeon’s wage to

value the time spent walking the family dog attributes a high price to a low-skilled activity.

Besides, some household production is done by people who do not earn a market wage.

Although their wage rate could be imputed using wages rates of workers with similar

education and other observed characteristics, as these people are not working they may

have some characteristics preventing them from earning this observed market wage. The

replacement-cost approach considers what it would cost to hire a worker to perform the

activity. Using a specialist’s wage for each household task – e.g. a plumber’s wage to fix a

leak – overestimates the value of the input since specialists work more efficiently and need

less time to perform the same task. The generalist wage approach applies the wage rate of

a domestic servant or handyman to value the time devoted to all household unpaid

activities.

This chapter uses both the opportunity-cost approach and the replacement-cost

approach. In the former, a country’s average hourly wage is used to value unpaid

household work, while the average hourly wage cost for unregistered (informal) activities

is used in the latter. In both cases, estimates of hourly wages are net of taxes and social

contributions and only primary activities are taken into account.6

Figure 1.13 presents the value of labour devoted to household production of non-market

services as a percentage of GDP for the 25 OECD countries for which data are available. The

contribution of unpaid work varies greatly between countries. The replacement-cost

approach suggests that the labour devoted to unpaid work accounts for 19% of GDP in Korea

up to 53% of GDP in Portugal. The upper-bound estimates are provided by the opportunity-

cost approach. Simple country averages of both approaches suggests that between one-third

and half of all valuable economic activity in the OECD area is not accounted for in the system

of national accounts. To the extent that those large populations under age 15 and over

age 64 undertake unpaid work, these will be under-estimates.

ConclusionUnpaid work matters a great deal. As shown in this chapter, unpaid work – largely

dominated by cooking, cleaning and caring – is an important contributor to societal

well-being in ways that differ both between countries and between men and women in

different countries. The contribution of unpaid work to well-being is both in terms of

current consumption (e.g. cleaning) and improving future well-being (e.g. parental

investments in raising children). In all countries, women do more of such work than men,

to some degree balanced – by an amount varying across countries – by the fact that they do

less market work.



The question whether GDP growth via greater female labour force participation is a

consequence of marketisation of unpaid work, rather than attributable to a rise in

productivity, is not directly addressed in this chapter, although the country cross-sectional

data suggest that such processes occur. It is likely that the extent of this trade-off varies

across the countries considered here. It is in addressing this sort of question that the

Figure 1.13. Unpaid work accounts for one-third of GDP in the OECD member countries1

Measured as a percentage of GDP

1. Time-use estimates for the population aged 15-64 over the period 1998-2009 are used and only primary activitiesare taken into account. See Figure 1.1 for country notes.

2. A country’s average hourly wage cost for unregistered (informal) activities is used to value unpaid householdwork. For several countries, this information was not available. Instead, the following wage costs are used: wagescosts for registered activities adjusted for tax and social security contributions (Australia and Japan); 50% of theaverage net wage for the total economy (Estonia and Mexico and Poland); the average hourly wage of a childcareworker adjusted for tax and social contributions (Norway).

3. The country’s average hourly wage is used to value unpaid household work.

Source: OECD’s Secretariat estimates based on national time-use surveys (see Ahmad and Koh, 2011).1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932381665

80%

%

60

40

20

0

80

60

20

40

0

Panel A. Replacement-cost approach2

Panel B. Opportunity-cost approach3

Korea

Canad

a

Norway

2

Poland

2

Mexico

2

United

States

Netherl

ands

Eston

ia2

Belgium

Sweden

Austri

a

German

y

Finlan

d

Irelan

d

United

Kingdo

mFra

nce

Italy

Hunga

ry

Sloven

ia

Denmark

Spain

Japa

n2

New Ze

aland

Austra

lia2

Portug

al

Hunga

ry

Sloven

ia

Poland

Mexico

Korea

Belgium

Canad

a

Austri

a

Eston

ia

Norway

Netherl

ands Ita

ly

Irelan

dSpa

in

German

y

United

States

Finlan

d

Franc

eJa

pan

Sweden

Austra

lia

New Ze

aland

Portug

al

Denmark

United

Kingdo

m



regular collection of time-use data can be of tremendous value. Equally, consideration of

unpaid work for relative inequality and for inequality over time has not been addressed

here. Such work may be part of a future agenda for the OECD as new time-use surveys

become available for many countries in the next few years.

Notes

1. This special chapter is a summary of a longer working paper by Miranda (2011), which can beconsulted for more detail, including on technical issues.

2. There are no data on parents’ childcare activities for China, India, Mexico, the Netherlands,New Zealand and Turkey. For Portugal there is only information on the proximity measure ofparents’ childcare.

3. Time-use surveys in Canada, Hungary and the United States do not ask about secondary activities.For Spain, estimates on secondary childcare are not available.

4. Participation rates for cooking and clean-up are not available for Hungary.

5. From a cross-country perspective, the relationship is less clear-cut. The correlation coefficient forcooking time and eating is –0.05 for all respondents.

6. For more detailed information on the methodology and data sources, see the forthcoming OECDStatistics Directorate Working Paper: Incorporating Household Production into International Comparisonsof Material Well-Being (Ahmad and Koh, 2011).

Bibliography

Abraham, K. and C. Mackie (2005), Beyond the Market: Designing Nonmarket Accounts for the United States,National Academies Press, Washington DC.

Ahmad, N. and S. Koh (2011), “Incorporating Household Production into International Comparisons ofMaterial Well-Being”, OECD Statistics Directorate Working Paper, OECD Publishing, Paris, forthcoming.

Baker, M. (1997), “Parental Benefit Policies and the Gendered Division of Labour”, Social Service Review,Vol. 71, No. 1, pp. 52-71.

Becker, G. (1965), “A Theory of the Allocation of Time”, Economic Journal, Vol. 75, No. 299, pp. 493-517.

Budig, M. and N. Folbre (2004), “Activity, Proximity or Responsibility? Measuring Parental ChildcareTime”, in N. Folbre and M. Bittman (eds.), Family Time, the Social Organization of Care, Routledge,New York.

Ehrenreich, B. and A. Russell Hochschild (2003), Global Woman: Nannies, Maids, and Sex Workers in theNew Economy, Metropolian Books, New York.

Folbre, N. (2009), “Inequality and Time Use in the Household”, in W. Salverda, B. Nolan and T. Smeeding(eds.), Oxford Handbook of Economic Inequality, Oxford University Press.

Folbre, N. and J. Yoon (2007), “What is Child Care? Lessons from Time-Use Surveys of MajorEnglish-Speaking Countries”, Review of Economics of the Household, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 223-248.

Frazis, H. and J. Stewart (2010), “How Does Household Production Affect Measured IncomeInequality?”, Journal of Population Economics, forthcoming.

Freeman, R. and R. Schettkat (2005), “Marketization of Household Production and the EU-US Gap inWork”, Economic Policy, Vol. 41, pp. 6-50, January.

Hill, T. (1979), “Do-It-Yourself and GDP”, Review of Income and Wealth, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 31-39.

Hook, J. (2006), “Care in Context: Men’s Unpaid Work in 20 Countries, 1965-2003”, American SociologicalReview, Vol. 71, No. 4, pp. 639-660.

Ironmonger, D. (1996), “Counting Outputs, Capital Inputs and Caring Labor: Estimating GrossHousehold Product”, Feminist Economics, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 37-64.

Ironmonger, D. (2001), “Household Production”, in N. Smelser and B. Baltes (eds.), InternationalEncyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, Elsevier Science, pp. 6934-6939.

Jaumotte, F. (2003), “Female Labour Force Participation: Past Trends and Main Determinants inOECD Countries”, OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 376, OECD Publishing, Paris,12 December.



Lewis, J., M. Campbell and C. Huerta (2008), “Patterns of Paid and Unpaid Work in Western Europe:Gender, Comodification, Preferences and the Implications for Policy”, Journal of European SocialPolicy, Vol. 18, No. 21, pp. 21-37.

Miranda, V. (2011), “Cooking, Caring and Volunteering: Unpaid Work around the World”, OECD Social,Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 116, OECD Publishing, Paris (www.oecd.org/els/workingpapers).

OECD (2007), Babies and Bosses: Reconciling Work and Family Life – A Synthesis of Findings for OECDCountries, OECD Publishing, Paris.

OECD (2011), Doing Better for Families, OECD Publishing, Paris.

Stiglitz, J., A. Sen and J.P. Fitoussi (2007), “Report by the Commission on the Measurement of EconomicPerformance and Social Progress”, www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr.

Weinrobe, M. (2005), “Household Production and National Production: An Improvement of the Record”,Review of Income and Wealth, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 89-102.

Society at a Glance OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS · Society at a Glance 2011 OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS This...

Documents

Transcript of Society at a Glance OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS · Society at a Glance 2011 OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS This...